coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  Mrs Aleksandra Gracheva was born in 1947; Mr Nikolay Grachev was born in 1936; Mr Anatoliy Yakovlevich Pedan was born in 1942 and Mr Eduard Gennadyevich Kuznetsov was born in 1969. All the applicants reside in the town of Zhovti Vody, the Dnipropetrovsk Region.
5.  Between 1999 and 2001 the applicants instituted separate sets of proceedings in the Zhovti Vody City Court (hereafter “the City Court”), seeking the recovery of salary arrears against their former employer - the State owned Electrongaz Company (hereafter “the Company”).
6.  On 7 June 1999 and 30 March 2001 the City Court awarded Mrs Aleksandra Gracheva a total of UAH 6,759[1] against the Company.
7.  By the City Court’s judgments of 7 June 1999 and 4 May 2001, and the Dnepropetrovsky Regional Court of Appeal’s decision of 15 August 2001, Mr Nikolay Grachev was awarded a total of UAH 5,358[2] against the Company.
8.  On 31 March 2000 and 29 March 2001 the City Court awarded Mr Pedan salary arrears of UAH 7,027[3] against the Company.
9.  On 19 February 1999 the City Court ordered the Company to pay Mr Kuznetsov UAH 2,916[4] in salary arrears.
10.  All the judgments above became final and were sent to the Zhovti Vody City Bailiffs’ Office (hereafter “the Bailiffs”) for compulsory enforcement.
11.  In letters dated 23 and 24 January 2003, the Bailiffs informed the applicants that the enforcement of the judgments in their favour was impeded by the entry into force of the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property 2001, which barred the attachment and sale of the Company’s capital assets.
12.  On 7 March 2003 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Commercial Court (hereafter “the Commercial Court”) instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the Company and issued an injunction, barring the debt recovery. On 10 October 2003 the Commercial Court approved the rehabilitation proposal and appointed a trustee to run the bankruptcy rehabilitation of the Company’s business.
13.  On 21 October 2004 the Bailiffs terminated the enforcement proceedings in the applicants’ favour as the awards were paid to them in full.
4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Shostka, the Sumy Region, Ukraine.
5.  In October 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Shostka City Court against the Department of Education of the Shostka Municipal Council (the Department), seeking to recover additional salary for her time-in-service and healthcare benefits.
6.  On 8 December 1998 the Shostka City Court ordered the Department to pay the applicant UAH 1,201[1] in compensation. The judgment was not executed due to the Department’s lack of funds.
7.  In July 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Shostka City Court against the Shostka State Execution Service seeking to oblige it to execute the decision of 8 December 1998 and to receive compensation for moral damage caused by the non-execution of that judgment.
8.  On 29 July 1999 the Shostka City Court rejected these claims as being unsubstantiated. It also found that the judgment was not executed due to the lack of funds in the State budget.
9.  On 8 September 1999 the Sumy Regional Court upheld that decision.
10.  Between 1999 and 2001 the applicant unsuccessfully complained to the Presidents of the Sumy Regional Court and the Supreme Court of Ukraine with a view to having supervisory review proceedings initiated in her case.
11.  On 14 March 2001 the writ of execution was returned to the applicant unenforced due to the lack of funds on the accounts of the education department.
12.  On 17 May 2001 the Regional Court informed the applicant that there were no grounds for initiating supervisory review proceedings upon her complaints.
13.  On 2 July 2001 the Department responsible for the public water supply of the Shostka Municipal Council (the “DPW”) instituted proceedings in the Shostka City Court against Mr V.S. Kireyev (“V.S.K”.), seeking the payment of UAH 796.25[2] for the water supplied to him and his use of the water mains. On 21 February 2002 the Shostka City Court allowed the DPW’s claims and ordered V.S.K. to pay the debt. On 29 May 2002 the Sumy Regional Court of Appeal upheld that decision.
14.  In August 2001 the State “Sumyteplocomunenergo” company (the “SCS”) instituted proceedings in the Shostka City Court against V.S.K., seeking the payment of UAH 113.76[3] for his use of heating facilities. On 25 January 2002 the Shostka City Court allowed the SCS’s claims and ordered V.S.K. to pay the debt. On 29 April 2002 the Sumy Regional Court of Appeal upheld that decision.
15.  On 28 August 2001 the DPW instituted proceedings in the Shostka City Court against the applicant, seeking the payment of UAH 311.44[4] for the water supplied to her and for her use of the water mains. On 21 February 2002 the Shostka City Court allowed the DPW’s claims and ordered the applicant to pay the debt. On 29 May 2002 the Sumy Regional Court of Appeal upheld that decision.
16.  On 2 July 2001 the SCS instituted proceedings in the Shostka City Court against the applicant, seeking the payment of UAH 773.85[5] for the use of heating facilities. On 1 March 2002 the Shostka City Court allowed the SCS’s claims and ordered the applicant to pay the debt. On 29 May 2002 the Sumy Regional Court of Appeal upheld that decision.
4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in the village of Kosharivka, the Kharkiv region, Ukraine.
5.  In 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Kupyansk Town Court against the Joint Stock Company “Kupyanskyi Liteinyi Zavod” (the “KLZ”), in which the State held about 41% of the share capital. She sought the recovery of salary arrears. On 18 December 2000 the court awarded her UAH 1,400[1] in salary arrears and other payments.
6.  On 22 January 2001 the Kupyansk Town Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of that judgment.
7.  In 2001 the applicant filed an application with the labour disputes commission of the KLZ, seeking recovery of salary arrears. On 17 May 2001 the labour disputes commission allowed the applicant’s claims and ordered the KLZ to pay the applicant UAH 857[2] in arrears. On 23 May 2001 the commission issued a certificate in respect of its decision of 17 May 2001, which had the same status as a writ of execution issued by a court.
8.  On 8 June 2001 the Kupyansk Town Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the commission’s decision.
9.  In June 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in Kupyansk City Court against the KLZ, seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage. On 5 July 2001 the court found against the applicant. On 25 October 2001 the same court rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal for failure to comply with procedural formalities. The applicant did not appeal against this decision.
10.  On 8 July 2002 the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the decisions of 18 December 2000 and 17 May 2001 could not be executed due to the large number of enforcement proceedings against the KLZ and the fact that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor company had been suspended because of the moratorium on the forced sale of property belonging to State enterprises introduced by the Order of the President of Ukraine of 23 May 2001.
11.  By two decisions of 28 January 2005, the Bailiffs’ Service discontinued the enforcement proceedings on the ground that the decisions had been enforced in full.
12.  The applicant did not challenge these decisions of the Bailiffs’ Service before the domestic courts.
4.  The applicants live in Mersin.
5.  On 9 February 1993 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated two plots of land belonging to the applicants in Mersin in order to build a motorway. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plots of land and the relevant amount was paid to the applicants when the expropriation took place.
6.  Following the applicants’ request for increased compensation, on 10 November 1993, the Mersin Civil Court of First-instance awarded them additional compensation of 443,710,000 Turkish liras (TRL), plus interest at the statutory rate, applicable at the date of the court’s decision, running from 9 February 1993, the date of the transfer of the title-deeds.
7.  On 26 October1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Mersin Civil Court of First-instance.
8.  On 17 May 2000 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways paid the applicants TRL 1,768,440,000 (approximately 3,175 euros (EUR)), including interest.
4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Salsk, Rostov Region.
5.  In September 1996 the applicant was awarded by the Salsk Social Security Service (Управление соцзащиты г. Сальска) a monthly child allowance in respect of her son who was born on 26 July 1996.
6.  In June 1998, having received no payments, the applicant brought proceedings before the Salsk City Court (Сальский городской суд) requesting the payment of outstanding sums for one year and ten months.
7.  By a judgment of 7 October 1998 the City Court allowed the applicant’s claim and ordered the Salsk Social Security Service to pay her 1,886.13 roubles (RUR).
8.  After the judgment gained legal force on 17 October 1998, the Salsk Bailiff’s Service (Служба судебных приставов по Сальскому району) instituted proceedings to enforce the judgment. However, as the defendant lacked proper funding the judgment could not be executed.
9.  On 31 January 2000 the Rostov Regional Department of Justice (Главное управление юстиции Ростовской области) replied to the applicant’s complaint concerning the non-execution of the judgment in her favour that the budgetary situation of the Salsk Social Security Service had not significantly improved and that due to the large number of similar claims totalling 291 the applicant had to wait for her turn on the waiting list where her position was no. 118.
10.  On 10 September 2001 the sum of RUR 1,886.13 was transferred to the applicant’s bank account.
11.  On 3 December 2003 the applicant informed the Court that since she had received no payments of child allowance for 1998 and 1999, she had lodged a claim against the Financial Department of the Salsk Administration (Финансовое Управление Администрации г. Сальска и Сальского района). On 12 September 2002 the Second District Court of Salsk (Судебный участок № 2 г. Сальска и Сальского района) had allowed the applicant’s claim and had ordered the Financial Department to pay her RUR 12,133.84, comprising the arrears of child allowance, indexed due to inflation, and the court fees. On 15 October 2002 the applicant had turned to the Salsk Bailiff’s Service (Служба судебных приставов г. Сальска) in order to have the judgment executed. In August 2003 she had been paid RUR 2,404.21.
8.  The applicant in was born in 1931 and lives in the Chita Region.
9.  In 1973 the applicant, then a miner, was injured at work. In 1999 the applicant filed with the Chernyshevskiy District Court of the Chita Region two actions against his former employer, a private company. He claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage (вoзмещение морального вреда) caused to him by the injury, and payment of a “lump-sum allowance” (единовременное пособие). This allowance pertained to victims of industrial accidents.
10.  On 21 September 1999 the Chernyshevskiy District Court delivered two judgments in the applicant’s favour. The Court granted RUR 11,582.80 for non-pecuniary damage and RUR 30,000 as the lump-sum allowance. The judgments were not appealed against and became final. Bailiffs instituted enforcement proceedings in this respect.
11.  On an unspecified date the defendant applied to the President of the Chita Regional Court for “supervisory review” of the case (see the “Relevant Domestic Law” part below).
12.  On 13 July 2000 the President of the Chita Regional Court lodged with the Regional Court an extraordinary appeal (протест в порядке надзора) against the judgments of 21 September 1999. A copy of the appeal was sent to the applicant. The President stated that the relevant provisions concerning compensation for non-pecuniary damage and payment of a “lump-sum allowance” had entered into force in 1992, while the injury had been inflicted in 1973. The President concluded that the lower court had erroneously applied the legislation retroactively.
13.  On 10 August 2000 the Presidium of the Chita Regional Court examined the appeal under the presidency of the Court’s President. The applicant, who was not present, submitted his objections in writing.
14.  The Presidium found that the Chernyshevskiy District Court of the Chita Region had erroneously applied the legislation of 1992 to the facts which had taken place in 1973. As a result the Presidium quashed the two judgments of 21 September 1999 and adopted two new judgments, dismissing the applicant’s claims in full.
5.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Sarajevo.
6.  On 25 August 1993 the Military Police seized the applicant’s car in front of his house in Mala Duba near Makarska, Croatia.
On 10 September 1993 the applicant brought a civil action in the Makarska Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Makarskoj) against the State seeking recovery of the seized car or, alternatively, pecuniary damages.
7.  On 13 November 1997 the Municipal Court gave judgment by which it accepted the applicant’s claim and awarded him the damages sought.
8.  On 2 February 1998 the State lodged an appeal against the judgment with the Split County Court (Županijski sud u Splitu).
9.  On 6 November 1999 the Amendments to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1999 Amendments”) entered into force. The amended legislation provided that all proceedings instituted against the State for damage caused by members of the Croatian Army and police in the performance of their official duties during the Homeland War in Croatia were to be stayed.
10.  After the enactment of the above legislation, the County Court returned the case-file to the Municipal Court with a view to staying the proceedings.
11.  On 10 February 2003 the Municipal Court stayed the proceedings.
12.  On 8 April 2003 the applicant appealed against that decision to the Split County Court. The proceedings are currently pending before that court.
13.  On 31 July 2003 new legislation on the liability of the State for damage caused by members of the Croatian Army and police in the performance of their official duties during the Homeland War (“the 2003 Liability Act”) entered into force.
14.  Meanwhile, on 8 August 2002 the applicant filed a constitutional complaint concerning the length of the proceedings. To date, the Constitutional Court has not given a decision on the applicant’s complaint.
4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Brzeg, Poland.
5.  On 26 January 2000 the applicant was remanded in custody on a charge of robbery. On 31 July 2000 he was convicted as charged and sentenced to a prison term.
6.  The applicant appealed against his conviction but his appeal was dismissed on 20 December 2000 by the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny).
7.  On 13 March 2002 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal.
8.  The first page of the applicant’s first letter to the Court of 26 May 2000, which was delivered to the Court on 19 July 2000, bears a stamp: “Censored on – [a hand‑written date]: 14.07.2000, judge: [an illegible signature]” (Ocenzurowano dnia – 14.07.2000, sędzia [podpis nieczytelny]). The same stamp and signature are marked on the third page of the letter. Moreover, two words have been obscured with a felt-tip pen on the last page of the letter. The left side of the envelope in which the letter was delivered was opened and subsequently sealed with Sellotape.
6.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Istanbul.
7.  On 12 September 1980 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of having committed an armed attack and attempted murder.
8.  On 17 October 1980 the Ankara Martial Law Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand.
9.  On 13 April 1991 he was released pending trial.
10.  On 25 December 1992 the Ankara Martial Court convicted the applicant of premeditated murder, pursuant to Article 450 § 4 of the Criminal Code, and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
11.  On 12 May 1993 the Military Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Ankara Martial Law Court on the ground that the latter had misinterpreted the domestic law in respect of the offence in question and remitted the case to the court of first instance.
12.  Subsequent to the promulgation of Law no. 3953 on 27 December 1993, which abolished the jurisdiction of the Martial Law Courts, the Ankara Assize Court acquired jurisdiction in the applicant’s case.
13.  In 1994 the Ankara Assize Court commenced the applicant’s trial together with one hundred and thirty-two other accused.
14.  On 21 November 2003 after numerous hearings had been conducted, Ankara Assize Court convicted the applicant of the aforementioned crime and sentenced him to thirty-six years’ imprisonment under Article 59 of the Criminal Code.
15.  On 7 May 2004 the Public Prosecutor before the Ankara Assize Court appealed to the Military Court of Cassation against this judgment.
16.  The criminal proceedings against the applicant are currently pending before the Court of Cassation.
9.  On 15 April 1998 the applicant was arrested and charged with attempted extortion of money by threats. On 16 April the Pruszków District Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the detention order, finding that in the light of the evidence the arrest was justified.
10.  On 17 April 1998 the Pruszków District Court decided to detain the applicant on remand. Subsequently, throughout the initial period of his detention, at least until 2 July 1998, the applicant remained in the detention centre Warszawa-Białołęka.
11.  On an unspecified date after 2 July 1998 the applicant was transferred to the detention centre Warszawa-Mokotów.
12.  On 26 July 1998 the applicant sent his first letter to the European Commission of Human Rights. A letter of 24 August 1998, sent by the Commission to the applicant, was intercepted, opened and read by the prosecutor conducting the investigations in the applicant’s case.
The envelope in which the letter was delivered bears the following stamps: Detention Centre Warszawa-Białołęka, 8 September 1998; Detention Centre Warszawa 10 September 1998, Detention Centre in Olsztyn 12 October 1998, the Barczewo Prison 14 October 1998. It also bears a note: Censored, 15 September 1998 (“Ocenzurowano”) signed by an illegible signature.
13.  The applicant requested that criminal proceedings be instituted in respect of the interference with his correspondence from the European Commission of Human Rights.
14.  On 27 December 2001 the Warszawa-Ochota District Prosecutor discontinued the investigation of the applicant’s complaint about the letter of 24 August 1998 having been intercepted, opened and read, finding that no criminal offence had been committed. The applicant appealed.
15.  By a decision of 9 May 2002 the Pruszków District Court dismissed his appeal. The court observed that the prosecutor Z.O. who had opened the letter had been authorised by law to open it, to read its contents and to decide whether to forward it to the detained person. The court further considered that Article 103 of the Code of Enforcement of Criminal Sentences, insofar as it prohibited interference with correspondence with international institutions for the protection of human rights, was applicable only to persons convicted by final judicial decisions. Hence, it was not applicable to the situation of the applicant who had at the material time been detained on remand and his situation was therefore governed by other provisions.
4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On 20 February 1995 the applicant’s wife filed for divorce. She also requested the division of the matrimonial property and the settlement of the use of the couple’s flat.
6.  After five hearings, on 26 June 1996 the court gave a partial decision and pronounced the parties’ divorce. The proceedings concerning the matrimonial property continued.
7.  Meanwhile, on 13 June 1995 the applicant brought an action before the same court, challenging the validity of a contract by which his ex-wife had meanwhile sold their common flat.
8.  After five hearings, on 16 January 1997 these proceedings were joined to the dispute concerning the division of the matrimonial property.
9.  After another two hearings, on 16 July 1997 a valuation expert was appointed.
10.  Following four further hearings, on 26 June 1998 the District Court gave a partial decision. It established the parties’ respective shares of the ownership of the flat, annulled the above-mentioned contract and suspended the examination of the remainder of the case (i.e. the distribution of movable property) until the partial decision became final.
11.  After a hearing on 20 January 1999, on 21 April 1999 the Budapest Regional Court confirmed the partial decision.
12.  In review proceedings, on 8 May 2001 the Supreme Court quashed the partial decision while upholding, again as a partial decision, the establishment of the parties’ respective shares of the ownership of the flat. However, it did not annul the disputed contract.
13.  Subsequently, on 14 March 2002 the District Court resumed the proceedings. After a hearing on 2 July 2002, on 4 December 2002 it divided the matrimonial property.
4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Budaörs.
5.  In 1976 the applicant married Mr J.V. Their daughters were born in 1978 and 1981.
6.  In March 1993 the applicant filed for divorce before the Budaörs District Court. She also sought custody of the couple’s children and the regulation of related matters.
7.  On 8 August 1994 an expert submitted her opinion on the children’s relationship with the parents.
8.  On 27 September 1994 the District Court pronounced the couple’s divorce, granted custody of the children to the mother, ordered the respondent to pay maintenance, regulated his access rights and ordered that the couple should share the use of the flat, which was jointly owned. It considered that the respondent’s alcoholism and its negative effect on the children did not justify the grant of the exclusive use of the flat to the mother and the children.
Both parties appealed. The applicant claimed exclusive use of the flat.
9.  On 7 February 1995 the Pest County Regional Court dismissed the parties’ appeal, holding that the first-instance decision had been given in accordance with the law.
10.  On 23 February 1995 the applicant brought an action before the Budaörs District Court for the division of the matrimonial property.
11.  The court held hearings on 19 May and 11 July 1995. On 20 July 1995 it appointed an expert architect. Further hearings took place 1 November and 4 December 1995, 1 February and 11 March 1996.
12.  On 12 March 1996 the applicant unsuccessfully requested the court to grant priority to her case.
13.  The District Court held hearings on 13 June, 1 October and 12 December 1996. On 16 January 1997 another expert was appointed.
14.  A further hearing took place on 25 June 1997. A third expert was appointed on 5 September 1997.
15.  On 1 October, 25 November and 9 December 1997, 13 February and 31 March 1998, the court held additional hearings. On that date it appointed an expert committee to reconcile the existing expert opinions. After having been urged to do so on 3 May 1999, the latter submitted its opinion on 1 June 2000.
16.  Meanwhile, on 23 September 1998 and 18 February 2000, the applicant again unsuccessfully requested that priority be granted to her case.
17.  On 30 June and 12 July 2000 the applicant’s motion for bias and her complaint against the committee’s opinion were rejected.
18.  On 27 October 2000 the District Court delivered its judgment and divided the matrimonial property between the parties, ordering the applicant to pay 2,179,500 Hungarian forints to the respondent as compensation for his share of the flat which he had to leave.
19.  On 15 May 2001 the Pest County Regional Court dismissed the parties’ appeals.